I have a query which does 3 selects and Union ALLs each to get a final result set. The performance is unacceptable - takes around a minute to run. If I remove the Union All so that the result sets are returned individually it returns all 3 from the query in around 6 seconds (acceptable performance).
Any way to join the result sets together without using Union All.
Each result set has exactly the same structure returned...
Query below [for reference]...
WITH cte AS ( SELECT A.[PoleID], ISNULL(B.[IsSpanClear], 0) AS [IsSpanClear], B.[SurveyDate], ROW_NUMBER() OVER (PARTITION BY A.[PoleID] ORDER BY B.[SurveyDate] DESC) rownum FROM[UT_Pole] A LEFT OUTER JOIN [UT_Surveyed_Pole] B ON A.[PoleID] = B.[PoleID]
I would like to use LINQ to generate a sql statement that does not use LIKE, but rather uses CONTAINS. Is this possible? If not, my second question is whether or not I can parameterize a SqlCommand that uses CONTAINS. For example the following statement works just fine when I pass in the parameter via SqlCommand.Parameters.AddWithValue()SELECT * FROM [event] WHERE CONTAINS(comments, @searchTerm1)However, the following results in a variable not defined error.SELECT * FROM [event] WHERE (comments LIKE @searchTerm1)Any ideas? Thanks for your help.
I'm trying to write a query to associate to an alternate key. Cansomeone provide the right syntax/keyword I need to accomplish this?Here's the line that keeps giving me the error (Operand type clash:uniqueidentifier is incompatible with int):JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(VocabularyFrench, *, 'FORMSOF(INFLECTIONAL,"remorques")') SRCH ON P.PRODUCT_ID = SRCH.[KEY]Thanks,Jeff
i use two containstable (one of them with 'formsof') and one freetexttable attributes in a select command and i want to combine them with the logical 'or'.can i do this in the same command? what is the syntax?my code :select table1.field1,a.rank,b.rank,c.rankfrom table1containstable(table1,field,'"word"') as aor containstable(table1,field,'formsof(inflectional(word)') as b)or freetexttable(table1,field,'word') as cwhere table1.id=a.[key] and table1.id=b.[key] and table1.id=c.[key]the above syntax is wrong. i tried ',' instead of 'or' but the results were not right. thanks
Hi,I'm doing a search function for recipe database and have the query:1 SELECT K.RANK, tRecipe.sHeadline, tRecipe.sIngredients, tRecipe.sImagePath 2 FROM tRecipe 3 INNER JOIN 4 FaktaRecipe ON tRecipe.iRecipeID = FaktaRecipe.iRecipe 5 INNER JOIN 6 CONTAINSTABLE(tRecipe, *, 'ISABOUT (chick* WEIGHT(0.2))') AS K 7 ON tRecipe.iRecipeID = K.[KEY] 8 WHERE (FaktaRecipe.iRecipeFakta = 5) 9 ORDER BY RANK DESC I want to return records like 'chicken pie' etc, hence using the wildcard in chick* BUT the wildcard doesn't work! It works fine if I use the whole word 'chicken' but of course a user won't always do that... I am using SQL server 2000. Any ideas? - I'm tearing my hair out! Thanks,Paul
This works when @searchString is used in containstable (provided searchString has value)...
set @searchStringNoneOfWords = 'not(Airplane)' SET @searchString = @searchString + ' AND ' + @searchStringNoneOfWords
This does NOT work when @searchString is used in containstable...
set @searchStringNoneOfWords = 'not(Airplane)' SET @searchString = @searchStringNoneOfWords
I understand it is because the syntax is AND NOT, but what if I have a list of words that I do not want included? How do I start out with a NOT using containstable? It is kind of like Google's advanced search except that if you enter a word in the "without words" section with the other fields blank it would return everything under the sun except for things found with those words.
I am using the following query to search all columns in the 'dashboard'table for the value 'Meets':SELECT * from dashboard AS FT_TBL INNER JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(dashboard,*,'meets') AS KEY_TBL ON FT_TBL.employee = KEY_TBL.[KEY]I have multiple records that contain the word 'Meets', but none areshowing up as a result of this query. Any ideas?Also, anytime I use a space in my search condition (Meets Expectationsinstead of Meets) I am getting an error:Syntax error occurred near 'Expectations'. Expected ''''' in searchcondition 'Meets Expectations'.Any ideas?Thanks in advance.
I have a stored procedure that uses containstable and want to make it a little dynamic so I was going to add a parameter that consist of the column names that needed to be search. But when I add a variable I get an error saying incorrect syntax....
Can you not use a variable as a column list?? I have a variable for search criteria and it works fine...
Here is my syntax
containstable([tablename],@columnlist,@srch)
I have been looking online and can't seem to find anything that says I can or cannot use a variable.
Can somebody help me in identifying the difference between FREETEXTABLE and CONTAINSTABLE statements?
I have recently started experimenting with the free text search and I feel that FREETEXTTABLE can look for the search string into multiple columns by breaking it into tokens.
For example
select ft_tbl.saon, ft_tbl.paon, ft_tbl.street, ft_tbl.postcode ,key_tbl.rank from temp as ft_tbl INNER JOIN freetextTABLE(temp, (saon, paon, street), '80 ridge avenue', 15) as key_tbl ON FT_tbl.ID = key_tbl.[key]
Now in my case €œ80€? is in PAON column and €œRidge Avenue€? is in STREET column. Among the resulting rows it also displays the required row. If I try to achieve this with CONTAINSTABLE using
select ft_tbl.saon, ft_tbl.paon, ft_tbl.street, ft_tbl.postcode ,key_tbl.rank from temp as ft_tbl INNER JOIN containsTABLE(temp, (saon, paon, street, postcode), '80 ridge avenue') as key_tbl ON FT_tbl.ID = key_tbl.[key]
It gives me error Syntax error near 'ridge' in the full-text search condition '80 ridge avenue'.
If I make search string as €˜€?80 ridge avenue€?€™ instead of €˜ridge avenue€™ then it doesn€™t give me error but also displays no results because 80 ridge avenue does not appear as whole in any single column. If I search by only specifying €œridge avenue€? in search string then I get a full list where street is ridge avenue.
My question is Does FREETEXTTABLE can search in all listed column by breaking the search string into tokens and CONTAINSTABLE only in one as whole?
Is there a simple and direct way to perform a fulltext query in a table with multiple columns, and to use AND over multiple columns? I've noticed that AND only works within one column.
Example: Take a column 'lastname' with 'jones' and 'smith' in it. Another column 'firstname' with 'alan' where lastname=smith. Search for 'alan and smith', and no results are returned because they are in different columns. If you would have a lastname 'alan smith', that would be found.
I have a few questions related to using CONTAINSTABLE in a query that I hope someone can help with.
I am working on a project to add document search capabilities to my companies product using fulltext indexing. Part of this requirement is an ability to breakdown the component parts of of the search query and provide information on *why* documentX ranked higher than documentY. This is a bit convoluted, but taking this (very simple) example - the user wishes to search for 2 skills - "HTML" and/or "XML". The generated query looks a little like :-
Select DOC.DOC_ID, RANK1.RANK, RANK2.RANK, RANK3.RANK from DOCS DOC inner join CONTAINSTABLE(docs, doc, 'HTML AND XML') as RANK1 on RANK1.DOC_ID=DOC.DOC_ID inner join CONTAINSTABLE(docs, doc, 'HTML') as RANK2 on RANK2.DOC_ID=DOC.DOC_ID inner join CONTAINSTABLE(docs, doc, 'XML') as RANK3 on RANK3.DOC_ID=DOC.DOC_ID
This returns the "overall" rank, and a rank for the 2 component parts, so I can say this doc ranked XXX overall because it scored "rank1" for HTML and scored "rank2" for XML etc....
My question on this part is about the values for the "overall rank". If the query contained an OR it always seems to return the highest of the "rankX" values, and if it doesnt, it returns the lowest. e.g. for the example for java and word and excel and access - the overall ranking is 2 , java=36, word=2, excel=16 and access=36 for java and word or excel and access - the overall ranking is 16 , java=36, word=2, excel=16 and access=36 for (java and word) or (excel and access) - the overall ranking is 16 , java=36, word=2, excel=16 and access=36
So in the first example, regardless of what the other values are, the rank returned is always 2 (the score for "word"). My resultset has 100ish rows, all with a rank of < 5 for word, but all with ranks of 18-100 for the other 3 values - yet the "overall" rank always matched the "word" rank.....?? This doesnt feel right to me somehow, I would expect a different value as if the document ranked really highly for one value but low for the other, it doesnt feel right the value is clamped to the lowest? Or am I just understanding it wrong? If I use "freetexttable" the overall rank is a little more meaningful - but unfortunately I also need to use weighting, which brings me to my next question . . .
This question is about rankings returned from the ISABOUT function. In the following example, select * from documents as DOC inner join containstable(docs,doc,'project') as doc0 on DOC.DOC_ID=doc0."key" inner join containstable(docs,doc,'ISABOUT (project weight (1.0))') as doc1 on DOC.DOC_ID=doc1."key" inner join containstable(docs,doc,'ISABOUT (project weight (0.5))') as doc2 on DOC.DOC_ID=doc2."key" inner join containstable(docs,doc,'ISABOUT (project weight (0.1))') as doc3 on DOC.DOC_ID=doc3."key" inner join containstable(docs,doc,'ISABOUT (project weight (0.0))') as doc4 on DOC.DOC_ID=doc4."key" order by doc0.rank desc
The values I get from the doc1/2/3/4.RANK columns dont seem right. In this example,
doc0.rank = 133 doc1.rank = 150 doc2.rank = 330
doc3.rank = 924
doc4.rank = 0
These values dont make any sense to me, as the rank seems to go UP when the documentation on ISABOUT says it goes down (I think it says somewhere the calculated rank is multiplied by the weight?). Once again, is there something I missed or am I understanding it wrong?
Thanks in advance for any help into understanding the whys of this...
This works when @searchString is used in containstable (provided searchString has value)...
set @searchStringNoneOfWords = 'not(Airplane)' SET @searchString = @searchString + ' AND ' + @searchStringNoneOfWords
This does NOT work when @searchString is used in containstable...
set @searchStringNoneOfWords = 'not(Airplane)' SET @searchString = @searchStringNoneOfWords
I understand it is because the syntax is AND NOT, but what if I have a list of words that I do not want included? How do I start out with a NOT using containstable? It is kind of like Google's advanced search except that if you enter a word in the "without words" section with the other fields blank it would return everything under the sun except for things found with those words.
I am using the ContainsTable function to search a database from my (c#) app. This works relatively well and all fields of the table are indexed and searched. That is, any column, but per record only one column. What I mean is this: when searching for "chris 2007", I want to retrieve all items where author contains chris and year contains 2007. Currently, a search for chris brings up all items where author (or any other field) contains chris, a search for 2007 works as well, but chris 2007 fails as there is no -one- field where chris and 2007 are located. Can anybody help me achieve this? My code is:
Code Block SELECT FT_TBL.ID, FT_TBL.Type, FT_TBL.Author, IsNull(FT_TBL.Author, FT_TBL.Editor + ' (Ed.)') AS CorrectedAuthor, FT_TBL.Editor, FT_TBL.Title, FT_TBL.Abstract, FT_TBL.Comments, FT_TBL.Year, FT_TBL.City, FT_TBL.Publisher, FT_TBL.ISBN, FT_TBL.Pages, FT_TBL.Journal, FT_TBL.Issue, FT_TBL.Hyperlink, FT_TBL.Tags, KEY_TBL.RANK FROM Sources AS FT_TBL INNER JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(Sources, *, @searchQuery) AS KEY_TBL ON FT_TBL.ID = KEY_TBL.[KEY] ORDER BY KEY_TBL.RANK DESC;
I'm trying to use CONTAINSTABLE to do a product search on a number of columns. I want matches on some columns to be weighted higher than for other columns.
It seems like there should be a way to do this with CONTAINSTABLE - I know I can search by multiple strings and weight those matches variably, but what I want is to vary the weight by which column a single term matched. What I have now is a series of UNION queries, which are quite slow: =================== SELECT m.TitleCode, m.ShortName, m.ShortDescription, a.Rank, 50 as theWeight FROM CONTAINSTABLE (Product, ShortName, @theSearchTerm) as a, Product m(NoLock) WHERE a.[KEY] = m.TitleCode
UNION ALL
SELECT m.TitleCode, m.ShortName, m.ShortDescription, a.Rank, 40 as theWeight FROM FREETEXTTABLE (Product, ShortName, @theSearchTerm) as a, Product m(NoLock) WHERE a.[KEY] = m.TitleCode
UNION ALL
SELECT m.TitleCode, m.ShortName, m.ShortDescription, a.Rank, 30 as theWeight FROM FREETEXTTABLE (Product, MatchKeywords, @theSearchTerm) as a, Product m(NoLock) WHERE a.[KEY] = m.TitleCode
UNION ALL
SELECT m.TitleCode, m.ShortName, m.ShortDescription, a.Rank, 20 as theWeight FROM FREETEXTTABLE (Product, ShortDescription, @theSearchTerm) as a, Product m(NoLock) WHERE a.[KEY] = m.TitleCode
I have a Union All transformation with 4 inputs and one output when I debug the package the sum of the different inputs rows does not match the row count in output.
I don't understand, I've used the Union All transform many times and I've never seen this.
I just found out that I can do an ORDER BY clause on entire records set retrieve from a query that combines several sub queries with UNION from different tables with the same structure... so this is great to know, BTW, is this a new feature of MSSQL 2K ? I don't recall being able to do this in MSSQL 7 or 6.5.
Anyway, the main question is, can I use the TOP command in a query that has UNION in it?? Meaning, there are two queries (or more) from two tables (or more) and I need to fetch the top 10 records by an ORDER BY clause from the combined results, when I try to add each sub query TOP 10 the results are not correct at all, when I try to add TOP 10 only to the first query hoping that the analyzer will refer to the whole query, it's selecting TOP 10 from the first query and combines it with all the records from the others...
So, can anyone help? I hope the problem is understood.
I am trying to join to different queries into one table ( I accomplished this)
Next I need to ADD or SUM the results of 2 rows to form a single row.
As you can see in the query below, I run 2 separate queries and use ' ' as a place holder for the UNION to work. I get duplicate rows, one with a value and the other with a '0'. I want to have a single row.
Any help is greatly appreciated!
(SELECT v_gs_supportedpackages.ProdID0 as 'Product Name', v_RA_System_SMSInstalledSites.SMS_Installed_Sites0 as 'Site', Count(ProdID0) as '# copies installed', '' as '# legitimate copies installed'
FROM v_R_System SYS, v_GS_Workstation_Status HWSCAN, v_gs_SupportedPackages inner join v_RA_System_SMSInstalledSites on v_RA_System_SMSInstalledSites.ResourceID = v_gs_SupportedPackages.ResourceID
WHERE SYS.ResourceId = HWSCAN.ResourceId AND SYS.ResourceId = v_gs_SupportedPackages.ResourceId AND v_gs_supportedpackages.ProdID0 = substring('MS Security Patch MS04-030,031,032,034,037,038',1,60)
(SELECT v_gs_supportedpackages.ProdID0 as 'Product Name', v_RA_System_SMSInstalledSites.SMS_Installed_Sites0 as 'Site', '' as '# copies installed', Count(ProdID0) as '# legitimate copies installed'
FROM v_R_System SYS, v_GS_Workstation_Status HWSCAN, v_gs_SupportedPackages inner join v_RA_System_SMSInstalledSites on v_RA_System_SMSInstalledSites.ResourceID = v_gs_SupportedPackages.ResourceID
WHERE SYS.ResourceId = HWSCAN.ResourceId AND SYS.ResourceId = v_gs_SupportedPackages.ResourceId AND v_gs_supportedpackages.ProdID0 = substring('MS Security Patch MS04-030,031,032,034,037,038',1,60) AND DateDiff(Day,HWSCAN.LastHWScan,GetDate()) <= '20'
By default, the UNION operator removes duplicate rows from the result set. If you use ALL, all rows are included in the results and duplicates are not removed.
Why is it assumed that one would want the duplicates removed by default? Isn't that what SELECT DISINCT is for?
I was wondering if there is a way I could write this query as one query using union instead of 3 different queries?
SELECT columna as column,count(ID) as Applications FROM tablea GROUP columna
SELECT columna as column2, count(ID) as Approved FROM tablesa where substring(APP_DATE,1,6) >'200304' and in 'Approved') GROUP BY columna
SELECT columna as column3, count(ID) as Booked, sum(AMT) as amt, sum(AMT)/count(ID) as lavg from tablea where substring(APP_DATE,1,6) >'200304' and STATUS in('book') group by columna
I am doing a UNION of 8 views(with 3 million rows in each view approx). I am sure that there is NO DUPLICATE data between the views. SO specifying a UNION ALL would be better than specifying a UNION in this case?
Thanks!
Prakash.P The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources!
Hi All I want to do the following report and I want the 2nd select statement to appear at the bottom to display the totals
SELECT Item,B.Mar, B.Apr, B.May, B.Jun,B.Jul, B.Aug, B.Sep, B.Oct, B.Nov, B.Dec, B.Jan FROM fncWineSales(2007) AS A UNION SELECT 'Total',SUM(B.Mar), SUM(B.Apr), SUM(B.May), SUM(B.Jun),SUM(B.Jul), SUM(B.Aug), SUM(B.Sep), SUM(B.Oct), SUM(B.Nov), SUM(B.Dec), SUM(B.Jan) FROM dbo.fncWineSales (2007) AS B
Hello,Bear with me (not had much sleep last night), pls see following ddl,dml and comments for what is desired, I don't have a problem gettingdesired result(s), however, I'm wondering if there's another (better)solution than UNION operator in this case. TIA.-- DDLCREATE TABLE #TMP (col varchar(10));-- DMLinsert into #TMPvalues('A124');insert into #TMPvalues('A127');insert into #TMPvalues('A12728');insert into #TMPvalues('A17282');insert into #TMPvalues('BCD');insert into #TMPvalues('BCD');insert into #TMPvalues('CDSS');insert into #TMPvalues('DS');insert into #TMPvalues('YUUEI');-- goal: get one row with col data starting with 'A' and distict rowsfor the restselect top 1 colfrom #TMPwhere col LIKE 'A%'UNIONselect distinct colfrom #TMPwhere col NOT LIKE 'A%'
Hi,I can return results of a union easily enough, but I wish to sum the recordsfirst. Is this possible in a single SQL statement? Or do I have to useseparate ones to sum up after the union?Cheers,Chris
